Sussman v. Jo–Sta Realty Corp.

• Decision Date: 10 October 2012
• Citation: 951 N.Y.S.2d 683,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06796,99 A.D.3d 787
• Parties: Raymond S. SUSSMAN, respondent, v. JO–STA REALTY CORPORATION, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 787

951 N.Y.S.2d 683

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06796

Raymond S. SUSSMAN, respondent,

v.JO–STA REALTY CORPORATION, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 10, 2012.

Jack L. Glasser, P.C., Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Elliott S. Martin, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Banjamin M. Oxenburg of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, for the partition and sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated June 23, 2011, as denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) (1) and (3) to vacate an interlocutory judgment of partition and sale of the same court entered November 30, 2000, upon its default in appearing or answering.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see Clover M. Barrett, P.C. v. Gordon, 90 A.D.3d 973, 936 N.Y.S.2d 217;Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v. Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 628, 896 N.Y.S.2d 396). The motion must be “made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party” (CPLR 5015[a][1] ). Here, the defendant's motion to vacate its default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) was untimely since it was not made within one year after a copy of the interlocutory judgment of partition and sale (hereinafter the judgment), with notice of its entry, was served upon it ( see U.S. Natl. Bank Assn. v. Melton, 90 A.D.3d 742, 744, 934 N.Y.S.2d 352;Matter of Weintrob v. Weintrob, 87 A.D.3d 749, 750, 929 N.Y.S.2d 865). In any event, the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default. “If the [defendant] failed to actually receive a copy of the summons and complaint from the Secretary of State due to a change of address, it was due to its own fault as it failed to keep the Secretary of State advised [of] its current address for the forwarding of process” ( Town House St., LLC v. New Fellowship Full Gospel Baptist Church, Inc., 29 A.D.3d 893, 894, 815 N.Y.S.2d 281;see Castle v. Avanti, Ltd., 86 A.D.3d 531, 926 N.Y.S.2d 169;Yellow Book of N.Y., Inc. v. Weiss, 44 A.D.3d 755, 756, 843 N.Y.S.2d 190;Santiago v. Sansue Realty Corp., 243 A.D.2d 622, 623, 663 N.Y.S.2d 235). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly...